🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <PwyiLc3w165w@burger.wimsey.com>, 
	orion@burger.wimsey.com (Orion) writes:

>> In what other country is it openly argued that gun control is a bad
>> idea because it makes it harder for people to engage in armed
>> rebellion?  Ironically, most of this sort of rhetoric goes on to say
>> that people need the option of armed rebellion to make sure that the
>> government doesn't take away their right to possess firearms!

Of course I must throw my two cents in.....
The reason behind the American love of arms isn't anything as archaic as the
constitution.  It is based (humble opionion disclaimer|INSERT HERE) upon the
NRA lobbiest types who think that the "right to bear arms means that everyone
should of course carry a concealed weapon and that every house should have an
armory."  The US constitution states that the citizenry should be a civilian
militia because at the time they had a large Colonial European power right next
door and were afraid of having their butts kicked by said power.
Turning American into an armed camp just seems good business if you work for
Smith and Wesson.  That is what the spirit of the second ammendment was.
 
>> (I don't know of Canadians share in this same spirit with USAnians; my
>> impression based on little data is that they're more rebellious than
>> Europeans but less than USAnians.)

>Well, to be factual...a armed citizenry is probably more than just the 
>"best" defense against tyranny: it's quite possibly the ONLY defense. And 
>the government taking away the right of private citizens to own firearms 
>would effectively spell the end of Canadian democracy as we know it (show 
>me a TRUE democracy that doesn't allow private citizens (of _any_ ethnic 
>class or background) to own firearms...and isn't a conquered 'aggressor 
>nation, and ask yourself which is 'cause' and which is 'effect'.

I must disagree to this as well.......  We, I feel, have done alot to secure
our democracy (even though when it is time to vote, you feel like you have no
voice) and I don't think that even if we ever needed to rise up and throw off
our chains which bind us, a couple good ol' boys with shot guns will be able to 
stop a regiment of infantry.  The only thing they would stop is a couple of
C7 rounds... provided of course they don't break out the 50mm's.  So this talk
of rising in revolt is silly.... if we ever needed to we would have to buy real
arms....I bet the French or German or Russians would get us some for the right
price. 

>But to answer the original question: the Americans are different from us 
>for the same reason that they so vehemently resist the very *notion* of 
>any form of socialism...because THEY had to fight for their independance, 
>while we had ours handed to us (in my humble opinion, anyway).  :)

I don't want to diss you too bad but I think your wrong.  See, people pay taxes
and what they get back from the government is justly theirs, what other people
get are handouts.  In a country like the US with such a large and growing
inequality of wealth distribution.  The people with money (republicans) say
"get a job" while the "liberals" with money say "I feel guilty, here is some
money, because your a bum and can't get a job"   But the whole premise is that
if you are poor it is because you are lazy.  Background doesn't mean anything
and if they have anything socialised these people won't die in the gutters like
they deserve.  As for the the fact that they have had to fight for their
independence, yes they did....but are they now any different than the British of
yesteryear?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg, at school in Butte, MT (Yes--I'm Canadian)
Email:UGENJO0871@MTVMS2.MTECH.EDU
So direct any commments that way, I'm always into different opinions
EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG.....just kidding.